Allegorical or Literal?

Do you see your religious text as literal or allegorical? Do they set forth a moral standard through parable or do they literally outline specific events in history?

Allegorical.

Trying to make history a fact and calling it scripture is a difficult task. I mean, the news writers who write about today have a difficult job. You can't write about everything, because then you would have to write about writing, because that's all you would be doing. Writing instead of living, as there is so much to write about. So you have to decide what gets written and what gets left out. You want the reader to picture it just the way it is. If you just wrote about two people argueing the reader would think the whole argued, when infact everyone was at peace except these two. Now if this is the word of God, well then, you can decide who is right and who is wrong, so you don't have to worry about slanting the story, at least you have that in your favor.

quote:

---

Origenes Adamantius ".... I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history being apparently - but not literally - true ..." He put together the first bible, they say he died in prison.

---

I like the way you put that. I must agree with you that scripture should only be looked at as a series of parables intended to teach morality.

ExplodingGopher said:

quote:

---

I must agree with you that scripture should only be looked at as a series of parables intended to teach morality.

---

But, if Scripture conveys what actually happened in time, should it be considered history, and therefore, the events themselves literal?

And if they are literal events in history -- events that portray social, political, and religious cultures and settings with actual living beings -- should we not ask what these things meant to the people of those days? If taken as allegory, what do we say of the lists of lineage, names of people and places that are verifiable, and actual known historical occurances these stories portray? And does information such as this force us to read these ancient scriptures as having an historical context?

Strongclad - I am so happy that you believe that scripture is history.

What makes me even more happy is that I don't think scripture is history.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

Strongclad - I am so happy that you believe that scripture is history.

What makes me even more happy is that I don't think scripture is history.

---

So, since saying you are happy with us both believing two different things, are you implying that you're happy that one or both of us could be wrong; and that if one of us is right -- either one of us -- are you also implying that you're happy the other doesn't know the truth? Information isn't relative to the reader you know. Supposed facts are either right or wrong.

Are you also implying that it doesn't matter what either one of us believes in, even if contradictory?

Yes - I'm implying that it isn't that important.

I don't have the truth and neither do you, so it doesn't matter. Someday maybe you'll be smart enough to understand this.

Believing in something that you do not know is fact or fiction doesn't sound all that smart to me.

What makes believing important then?

What you are doing is making a belief or an opinion a fact to you, making it possible for you to believe it. Thats ok. We all do this. But you have to remember its just a belief or opinion that we decide to believe is true, others may not agree. There agreement or disagreement does not make your opinion or belief any more true or false. Almost everyone agreed that the world was flat. Being a sailor myself. It clearly does look flat, if anyone had told me differently I wouldn't have believed it either.

We have faith in a belief. We don't have faith in a fact.

The story of pinnochio is not a true story, however it still does tell the truth that we can be led estray by serving our wants to such a degree of turning a certain kind of person into another kind of person. I can very strongly believe that this is true even though I know that a man did not make a wooden doll that came to life.

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

We have faith in a belief. We don't have faith in a fact.

---

I can understand and agree that agreement or disagreement does not make anyone's opinion or belief any more true or false. But I can say accurately that your statement above is false. What about opinion or belief that IS based on fact? Fact that is seen and provable?

Take this for example:

I know for a fact that I am talking to okcitykid on captaincynic.com, and I know for a fact that you will more than likely respond to this and other posts on this forum. Based on your consistently visiting this site, and by consistently showing that you have interests in the topics that are discussed, I can show that it is most probable that you will be back and will respond to my statements. Although you do have a choice in the matter, and may not come back at all, it is improbable that you will leave permanently.

I can accurately say that I have "faith" in believing the "fact" that you are who you are, and that you will respond. How do you account for faith in the facts?

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

You had hoped that I might answer your post, and pretty sure I would, this is faith. Now that I have, it is now a fact and no longer a belief.

quote:

---

What about opinion or belief that IS based on fact? Fact that is seen and provable?

---

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen

okcitykid quoted:

quote:

---

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen

---

I see you emphasize the two words not seen in your quote, but did you recognize the word assurance? What is assurance? If you read the rest of Hebrews 11, you will understand what I mean. And you are right. Faith, is having assurance in the things that you know will come to pass. But just because it hasn't come to pass yet, doesn't not make it a fact. That's where faith in God comes from. Promises made directly from God to us, give us assurance of what we have to look forward to because God keeps his promises. And if you think about it, from a Christian perspective, that is a fact. There is no reason to doubt God's promises in the Christian world view. God's consistency shows his promises to be facts.

And I don't mean to make it look as if I'm arguing for argument's sake, I'm just trying to show that belief can be faith in a fact -- a fact that has not occured yet.

The scriptures are to be taken as allegory (for believers).
Since the scriptures can tend to be a bit unreliable when it comes to exact history, I wouldn't accept the litteral sense of the bible all the time.
However, like most old documents, it has its roots in fact and so can be used to confirm other historical evidence.

There go the unanswered questions - like for instance. In the story of Adam and Eve, where did the other people come from? As another person had expressed earlier, there are two creation stories in Genesis. Someone has explained that to me - but that is just another opinion. If I were to take the scriptures literally I would definitely have to declare them false, because they don't even agree with themselves.

I say - Let the historians do the history.
Let the scientist do the science.
Religion is magical – You either believe it or you don't. lets just leave it that way. : )

DumbTeen said:

quote:

---

Since the scriptures can tend to be a bit unreliable when it comes to exact history, I wouldn't accept the litteral sense of the bible all the time.

---

I'm a believer and I don't consider any book of the Bible as allegory, unless if it is specifically written in an allegorical fashion. Most all the books make straight forward claims or even imply that they're not allegorical. I haven't found any historically unreliable statements in the Bible yet. If you've found some could you point them out to me?

okcitykid said:

quote:

---

there are two creation stories in Genesis

---

I've heard this before. But it doesn' t fit. Read Genesis again and you will see it clearly doesn't give two creation accounts. I've never really understood why people think this.

quote:

---

I would definitely have to declare them false, because they don't even agree with themselves.

---

Where? As I've read them, there's too many places where they do agree.

quote:

---

I say - Let the historians do the history.
Let the scientist do the science.

---

But if Christianity is true, it has to be historically true. What about the Historians who have shown that Christianity -- the Bible -- is historically reliable (F.F. Bruce)? By using the same standards Historiographers use for determining reliability, Historians have shown the Bible to be more reliable than most other ancient documents that are considered by secular authorities to be without doubt.

All I'm saying is, if Christianity -- or any other religion for that matter -- is ultimately true, if it's as exclusive as it claims to be, then wouldn't it have to be historically real? Wouldn't it have to mean that its claims also have to be historically real?